Jordan v. Rice
| Decision Date | 30 June 1909 |
| Parties | JORDAN v. RICE. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied Dec. 16, 1909.
Appeal from Circuit Court, Marshall County; W. W. Haralson, Judge.
Assumpsit by Mollie C. Jordan against Charles H. Moore, aided by garnishment, in which Thomas R. Rice intervened, claiming the funds garnished. From a judgment for claimant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.
See also, 151 Ala. 523, 44 So. 93.
The charges referred to in the dissenting opinion are as follows (1) Affirmative charge to find for the plaintiff. (2) "The court charges the jury that, if they believe the evidence, the claim of Rice is not sustained, and as to him they must find for the plaintiff." (3) "The court charges the jury that the burden is upon Rice to prove that at the time of the transfer of the judgment Moore was then indebted to him for the land, and if the fact is that Moore was not to become indebted to Rice for the land until Rice got the money and the judgment, then this transfer would be invalid." (4) "A transfer made to Rice before service of the garnishment of the judgment in favor of Moore with the agreement between him and Moore that, if Moore got the money on his judgment, Rice would sell him some land for it, would be invalid as against this plaintiff." (5) "The court charges the jury that, in order to constitute a valid transfer of the right, it must be proven that the judgment was transferred in absolute payment of a then existing debt due by Moore to Rice." (6) "If Moore was insolvent, and if Rice knew this, and if the transfer to Rice by Moore was absolute in form, but was in fact intended only as a security for a debt, then the transfer would be void, and in such case your verdict would be for the plaintiff." (7) "The court charges the jury that the sole contract between Moore and Rice is the writing given Rice by Moore, and if said Moore was indebted by said judgment to plaintiff, and if according to that writing Rice was not to convey the land to Moore until Rice got the money out of the judgment against the railroad company, and that in the meantime Moore should occupy the land as a tenant of Rice and pay him rent thereon, then under such circumstances Moore did not become indebted to Rice for the land, and in that case your verdict should be for the plaintiff, as to the claim of Rice." (8) "If the consideration of the transfer to Rice, if one was made, was to be the payment of a debt for supplies, and also in payment of the agreed price of the land, but if credit was not to be given until Rice got the money, then if Moore was insolvent, and Rice knew it, the transfer would be void."
Street & Isbell, for appellant.
E. O. McCord, for appellee.
The only assignment of error on the record is as follows: "The court erred in refusing each of the following written charges, to wit: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, asked by appellant." This assignment is too general to authorize a separate review of the several charges so numbered. The appellant can take nothing by the assignment unless each of the charges so numbered should have been given. Some of these charges are palpably bad, and were unquestionably properly refused; nor do we mean here to intimate that any one of them should have been given.
The insistence of counsel, in his brief, is as general, or more so, if possible, than his assignment of error. After arguing that a certain transfer and assignment of a judgment was void, and also that it was in trust for the transferror, the argument concludes: No reason is assigned why any particular charge should have been given, but they are all argued together. Many of these charges, if not all, being properly refused, the judgment of the trial court must be affirmed. Ashford v. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631, 34 So. 10, 96 Am. St. Rep. 82.
Affirmed.
The effect of the majority ruling is to refuse separate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Malone v. Reynolds
...Beason v. Sov. Camp, W. O. W., 208 Ala. 276, headnote 3, 94 So. 123; Roach v. Wright, 195 Ala. 333, headnote 1, 70 So. 271; Jordan v. Rice, 165 Ala. 650, 51 So. 517; Hall v. Pearce, 209 Ala. 397, headnote 6, 96 608. We will consider count 14, which states the contract between the parties, s......
-
Hamilton v. Cranford Mercantile Co.
... ... cannot avail. Ashford v. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631, 641, ... 34 So. 10, 96 Am.St.Rep. 82; Jordan v. Rice, 165 ... Ala. 650, 51 So. 517 ... But ... aside from this, the first subject of complaint in this ... assignment made inquiry ... ...
-
Lusk v. Wade
...114 So. 137; Snellings v. Jones, 33 Ala.App. 301, 33 So.2d 371; City of Bessemer v. Whaley, 10 Ala.App. 569, 65 So. 691; Jordan v. Rice, 165 Ala. 650, 51 So. 517; Smith v. State, 130 Ala. 95, 30 So. 432; Ashford v. Ashford, 136 Ala. 631, 34 So. 10. At least six of the charges requested by t......
-
Snellings v. Jones
...to warrant consideration. The strictness of the Nowlin case, supra, seems however to have been relaxed in the later case of Jordan v. Rice, 165 Ala. 650, 51 So. 517, to extent that while such an assignment is too general to authorize a separate review of the several charges, such an assignm......